PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI,J. - (1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition, in sum and substance, for the following reliefs:- "a) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the impugned order dated 16.01.2015 (Annex.4) may kindly be quashed and set aside; and b) by an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable in B.S.F. in Jammu Kashmir State with all consequential benefits from the date when lesser meritorious candidates was afforded appointment. c) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. d) Writ petition filed by the petitioner may kindly be allowed with costs."
(2.) The petitioners herein applied in the recruitment process for the post of Constable (GD) in ITBPF, BSF, CISF, CRPF, SSB and Rifleman (GD) in Assam Rifles in the year 2013. Petitioners cleared the exam for the purpose of recruitment in the State of Jammu and Kashmir on merits and accordingly their names were included in the select list. The petitioners, however, were granted appointment on account of the fact that they were having domicile certificates of the State of Rajasthan, whereas they were seeking appointment against the posts of Jammu and Kashmir. The only reason why the petitioners were considered for the State of Jammu and Kashmir is condition No.(4) of the advertisement, which reads as follows : "Candidates belonging to the State/UT will only be considered for recruitment in their respective State/UT on production of valid "Domicile Certificate" issued by the competent authority so authorized by the concerned State/ UT to prove their domiciliary status. Since the State of Assam is issuing Domicile Certificate/PRC, candidates belonging to the State of Assam are required to submit the same. However, their selection will be subject to verification of residential status for the concerned District Authorities. West Pakistani refugees who have settled in J&K but have been given the status of J&K citizen of the State will be recruited without the condition of having a domicile certificate from the designated authority of the J&K State."
(3.) Counsel for the respondent at the outset submits that condition No.4(C) of the advertisement has been upheld by this Court in the matter of Sunil Kumar v. Union of India and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4111/2014, decided on 08.1.2016). The judgment reads as follows:- "1. In both these writ petitions, similar question is involved, therefore, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenient, facts of S.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4111/2014 are taken. 2. The petitioner applied for recruitment to the posts of Constable(GD) in ITBPF, BSF, CISF, CRPF and SSB (known as CAPFs) and Rifleman(GD) in Assam Rifles. The petitioner, who qualified Senior Secondary Examination, 2008 and eligible for recruitment to the post of Constable(GD), applied while opting for allotment against the posts of CAPFs in Andra Pradesh (Code 02). The petitioner was allocated examination centre at Binaker. In the examination conducted by Staff Selection Commission, the petitioner obtained 61 marks out of 100 marks. Medical examination was conducted and in the final result, the petitioner had been assigned to Rajasthan CAPFs(Code 29) instead of Andhra Pradesh (Code 02). It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has been wrongly ignored for selection in the vacancies for the State of Andhra Pradesh by considering his candidatures for the State of Rajasthan. If he would be considered for the State of Andra Pradesh, his name would be reflected in the final list as the lowest marks for junior category for Andra Pradesh is 41 marks and he had obtained 61 marks. Claiming that he had higher merit than the last selected candidate for the State of Andra Pradesh and aggrieved that his candidature has been considered for the State of Rajasthan where his name does find in the merit list, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Notice was issued of the said writ petition and reply has been filed by the respondents. It is categorically submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that the candidature of a candidate could be considered for vacancies in their respective State and since the petitioner being a resident and domicile of the State of Rajasthan could be considered for the State of Andhra Pradesh, even though he had filled Andhra Pradesh as his domicile in the application form. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 5. Admittedly, the petitioner in his application form had filled the State of Andhra Pradesh as his State/Union Territory of domicile. A perusal of the advertisement clearly reads as under:- "Candidate belonging to the State/UT will only be considered for recruitment in their respective State/UT on production of valid "Domicile Certificate" issued by the competent authority so authorised by the concerned State/UT to prove their domiciliary status. Since the State of Assam is issuing Domicile Certificate/PRC, candidates belonging to the State of Assam are required to submit the same. However, their selection will be subject to verification of residential status from the concerned District Authorities. West Pakistani refugees who have settled in J&K but have been given the status of J&K citizen of the State will be recruited without the condition of having a domicile certificate from the designated authorized of the J& K State." 6. A reading of the same clearly shows that it was specifically provided that a candidate belonging to a particular State/Union Territory would be considered for recruitment in their respective State (emphasis supplied). Meaning thereby, that a candidate should apply for recruitment to the post of Constable in their respective State only. In the present case, the petitioner though a resident of Rajasthan having a Domicile Certificate of Rajasthan, had applied for recruitment in the State of Andhra Pradesh, which was clearly impermissible. It is presumed that the application form was knowingly filled up after having gone through the advertisement in detail. Being aware of this condition that a candidate belonging to a State/Union Territory would be considered for recruitment in their respective State on the production of a valid Domicile Certificate, the petitioner, for the best known to him, opted to fill in Andra Pradesh of which State he did have a Domicile Certificate. Even if the petitioner obtained higher marks than the last selected candidates, in the State of Andra Pradesh he did fulfil the criteria since he was a domicile of the said State. 7. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has raised no other point for consideration of this Court. 8. Resultantly, I find that the petitioner, not being a domicile of the State of Andra Pradesh, could not be considered for appointment of the State of Andra Pradesh and his candidature was rightly considered for the State of Rajasthan. There is no infirmity or illegality in the action of the respondents in not considering the candidatures of the petitioner for the State of Andra Pradesh. 9. Therefore, the above noted writ petitions, being devoid of any merit, are dismissed.";